On the go and no time to finish that story right now? Your News is the place for you to save content to read later from any device. Register with us and content you save will appear here so you can access them to read later.

In her ruling, released yesterday, the judge identified about 50 defamatory statements published on Facebook and on a private website by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss — members of the Justice for Robin Bain group — to which there was no defence.

She ordered Mr Parker to pay damages of $350,500 and Mr Purkiss to pay $184,500.

She further punished the men by awarding indemnity costs against them because they "behaved egregiously" in choosing to use the defence of truth at the trial last October.

Mr Purkiss did not attend it, but Mr Parker admitted under cross-examination by Michael Reed, QC, that he could not prove his claims.

The legal bill could be $500,000 according to Mr Karam, bringing to around $1 million the cost to the defendants. That would make it one of the largest defamation damages and cost awards in New Zealand history.

Mr Karam said if the pair did not pay him, he would take bankruptcy proceedings against them.

Mr Karam said the men had made "an all-out assault on me [in] an attempt to show that I'm shonky".

He and Fairfax NZ had earlier agreed to settle defamation claims, on a confidential basis, arising from articles on stuff.co.nz that drew attention to the websites that contained the defamatory comments by Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss.

At the trial, Mr Reed laid out the case that the comments conveyed that Mr Karam lacked integrity, was dishonest, was motivated to support Mr Bain for financial gain and had defrauded the legal aid system.

One of the posts compared Mr Karam's campaign to free Mr Bain to Nazi propaganda, while another coined a new word to describe Mr Karam's knowledge of the case.

"Karamalisation equals to 'fudge the facts"' was one of the 50 comments which Justice Courtney said was defamatory and without defence.

In awarding costs (yet to be decided) and damages, the judge said Mr Karam had enjoyed a "positive and significant reputation" before becoming involved in the Bain case, with success in sport and business.

She accepted his evidence of the great distress the comments had caused him and Mr Reed's description of the defamation as a "full-scale assault on Mr Karam's reputation".

"He described the period during which these statements were posted as the worst four years of his life and I believe him," the judge said.